Dude, if I had a wife that wanted a car before I could sleep with her I'd file for divorce :(

06-06-2008

medievalelks

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizen

Well, freedom is not absolute, so that's why we have government. The reason governments should legislate when there is a concensus (well a large majority) is because we must consider how our resources are best applied.

Oh my, but of course personal freedom - as long as you do not harm others by force or fraud - is an absolute. It is conferred to us upon birth. Governments should not grant rights, but protect them.

The "tyranny of the majority" that you propose is how systematic oppression of classes of people exists in the first place. If 51% of the people decide that women should not vote, do they have that right taken away?

06-06-2008

Elysia

Quote:

Originally Posted by medievalelks

Oh my, but of course personal freedom - as long as you do not harm others by force or fraud - is an absolute. It is conferred to us upon birth. Governments should not grant rights, but protect them.

Are we finding ourselves in a discussion that defines the absolute?
What defines it - our laws or as a token of granted?
Or perhaps our religion?
I find it an interesting prospect. What is it that gives us these automatic rights?
And what is the law - is it simply the medium which is used to uphold these rights? Or are they perhaps part of the rights given to us?

Quote:

The "tyranny of the majority" that you propose is how systematic oppression of classes of people exists in the first place. If 51% of the people decide that women should not vote, do they have that right taken away?

I'd say that's an interesting argument.
For one, if the majority of the people wills it - then in the eyes of democracy, so should it be.
Yet, it would interfere with our "absolute" rights, so it should not be.
And yet it may interfere with certain laws. After all, democracy is for freedom.
So which side is right - the majority, our absolute rights or the laws?

06-06-2008

whiteflags

I did say "concensus." Coincidentally, a 3/5 majority passes a law in the United States; a popular vote elects the President, as well as other political offices. The fact that our own government was ratified this way does not ruin my position. Try to stay topical.

And yes, when you legislate to protect rights, you take some away. Freedom of speech, for example, has been legislated, but it would be impossible to claim that hoaxes, slander and other pejorative acts are equally respected as a right. Define what a right should be if you like, but I think there is a framework.

06-06-2008

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elysia

And yet it may interfere with certain laws. After all, democracy is for freedom.
So which side is right - the majority, our absolute rights or the laws?

It's an intersting subject, but:

No majority can interfere with the absolute rights in a democratic sate, simply because those rights are inalienable. In other words, they are never again subject to vote once agreed upon. This is so, for instance, with basic human rights (to which the example belonged) in those countries where they are transferred to the local Constitution.

06-06-2008

laserlight

Quote:

No majority can interfere with the absolute rights in a democratic sate, simply because those rights are inalienable. In other words, they are never again subject to vote once agreed upon. This is so, for instance, with basic human rights (to which the example belonged) in those countries where they are transferred to the local Constitution.

hmm... but would it not be possible for a substantive majority (e.g., that which is sufficient to change the constitution of the state) to interfere with these "absolute rights"?

06-06-2008

Elysia

The basic laws of democracy aren't invincible either. They can be changed. Not very easily, but they can be.
So say a majority of people voted to remove the right for equality - that some should be treated differently than others, and successively banning other things - such as some people would not be permitted to vote.
Where does this leave us? Can we remove our basic laws and retain our "absolute rights" or are those "absolute rights" no more since no law can uphold them?
Or are they the same?

06-06-2008

whiteflags

Consent of the governed. If America wants to elect Cobra Commander and he successfully amends the Constitution to further his platform, then they can. It's the people's responsibility to institute a new government when it stops working for the public. A possible revolution because of the consequences in keeping prostitution illegal isn't the best argument.

06-06-2008

Elysia

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizen

A possible revolution because of the consequences in keeping prostitution illegal isn't the best argument.

Well, I won't dig into that. I have no hope for reducing illegal prostitution whether it's legalized or not.

06-06-2008

Mario F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

hmm... but would it not be possible for a substantive majority (e.g., that which is sufficient to change the constitution of the state) to interfere with these "absolute rights"?

I would have to check with one of my friends. But I believe no, it wouldn't. The constitution contains articles that can be altered or removed. However, those deemed inalienable (fundamental?) cannot be changed by any form of voting process. In fact, they cannot even be subject to a voting process by either the population or a panel of high judges.

But... I'm not confident on what I am saying.

EDIT: In retrospect, the same happens with you not being able to referendum democracy. It's just not possible to question democracy in a democratic state. It's part of what is called the Metademocracy, I believe; the set of rules and fundamental values that govern the democratic condition and that cannot be questioned from within. Hence, in essence, democracy being a form of absolutism.

EDIT 2: Just called him. He's not sure either. 7 years in law school for nothing ;)
But he'll get back to me on that.

2)Prostitutes lead to pimps and pimps often lead to other serious crimes; drug dealing and murder to name some.

3)Not all hookers, but some cheaper prostitutes in more poor areas of the country often have several STDs, I would know (got a bad family background).

Prostitution is a demoralization of America. I shouldn't have to be around hoes and their violent pimps.

On the other hand, maybe a high class skank-house with no pimps pushing hoes would be ok. Also they would have to pay taxes and bla bla. That's just how I feel.

06-06-2008

abachler

Its already legal, they just call it 'marraige'. They screw you and then take all your money.

06-07-2008

jEssYcAt

Quote:

Originally Posted by abachler

Its already legal, they just call it 'marraige'. They screw you and then take all your money.

Hahaha! *deadpan* Not funny.

Ok, no, it was. ;)

I don't believe prostitution is immoral. In and of itself it provides a service that people enjoy. The prostitute herself may not enjoy it, but like data entry, shoveling manure, or any other task that people perform for compensation, enjoyment of the job isn't so much necessary to perform it (even if enjoyment would improve the performance). I also don't believe that the prostitute him or herself is a bad person based soley on being a prostitute. For whatever reason they do it, it is obvious that humans enjoy the services, or there would not be such a demand for it.

The problems that accompany it aren't unique to prostitution. In many cases there are elements of (or outright) slavery, sometimes accomplished by getting a girl hooked on drugs and then using that addiction to control her (Make me $300 tonight or you don't get no crack, girl!). There is also territorial violence when one encroaches on another's territory, diseases, the negative view of prostitution that prompts "prostitute killers", etc.

The issue as I see it is not so much whether legalizing prostitution will stop these problems, or even whether legalizing it will curb them to "acceptable levels". No matter what the government does, some women (and the odd man in weird circumstances) will find no other recourse but to sell their body to make ends meet, and will accept a pimp's "protection". Women will always find men willing to pay for everything from a sexy, fully clothed dance (or even less!) to all-out sexual intercourse. While legalizing it may provide some benefits, there will always be illegal prostitution and the problems that accompany it. The issue I see is whether or not it is worthwhile to legalize prostitution.

Unlike the lowered costs of manufacture and distribution for a given drug if it is legalized, which would reduce the impact of taxes and licenses, a prostitute charging $50 for a service isn't likely to charge less just because it's now legal. If anything, she'd have to charge more to cover the new expenses of std testing and the license, and she'd have to claim the income and charge the taxes on top. A prostitution house might be more able to handle this increased expense, but making sure the girls are clean would make it less profitable than if they just continued illegally.

Legalizing it would also introduce the thorny proposition of protecting the prostitutes in a more thorough way. Protecting them from physical abuse would be easier since, as long as they can prove they are whoring legally, they can call the police. Protecting them from rape and disease would be much, much harder though. A prostitute who gets an incurable disease is infected regardless of any legal recourse she has, and one saying they were raped would take a lot of convincing, otherwise prostitutes would suddenly gain a LOT of power, an issue that would bring the argument for big brother type measures which would drive people to the illegal ones instead so their political career doesn't get ruined.

Also, a lot of prostitution is spur of the moment, and having to take a blood test or something to make sure you won't infect the girls would probably kill that. As well, it would introduce a problem for those who are willing as they may discover they have a disease, which by itself can cause problems ("and just HOW did you find out you have herpes, my dear husband?!"). And then the clients who aren't legally allowed to go to a prostitute would have to turn to illegal prostitution anyway.

On the plus side, legalizing it would at least give some girls an opportunity to make a living doing what they would have turned to anyway, but without as much of the danger. But most girls who wouldn't qualify (drugs, disease, etc.) would still end up going back to illegal prostitution.

In the end (in my opinion), the legalization of prostitution might benefit a few people, but ultimately wouldn't change enough to make it worthwhile. It would be like the story of a man walking along the beach picking up starfish that washed ashore and throwing them back into the water. When another man sees him, he asks, "It doesn't make much of a difference because you can't help them all, and there are so many of them. Why do you do it?" The first man throws another starfish into the water and replies, "It mattered to that one."

If you agree with the first man, then you are in favor of legalizing prostitution because it will help some even if it ultimately fails many more (and you are a naive idealist). If you agree with the second man but still think it should be legalized, then you are either an idealist (but maybe not quite as naive) or just don't want to be arrested the next time you hire a prostitute. ;)

I would rather not have my tax dollars spent on such a fruitless endeavor. But then I am happily married and have no need for a prostitute.

06-07-2008

nvoigt

I really don't see what we are discussing here. Lets list pro and contra:

Pro Legalization:
- Prostitutes protected against customers misdemanor by law enforcement like any other profession
- Prostitutes pay taxes
- Prostitutes automatically have health insurance (may vary in your country, in my country, if you have a job, health insurance is automatically deducted from your paycheck, in part payed by your employer)

Contra Legalization:
- Nothing except morals.

Obviously, Benefits only benefit those, that are legally able and willing to join this "business". Lets not pull a number out of our collective asses and say it's a number N. All others, the underage, desperate, illegal immigrated, forced victims, lets say it's a number of people M, cannot reape the benefits. They are still treated like ........ and still illegal. Nothing changed for them. It doesn't get better. But it also doesn't get worse.

N people can lead a better life.
M people will experience no changes.

What ratio of N to M could it be, that would lead to a worsening of the situation ? I can't imagine any. Worst case scenario would be N=0, M=all. That would mean nothing changes at all, because not a single prostitute is free.

If the worst case scenario is no change, why not try ? If there is at least 1 N, it would be a good change, wouldn't it ?

06-07-2008

whiteflags

Well, the US doesn't have anything like national insurance, but I suppose a prostitute could afford it.

I suppose the argument would be if prostitution were legal, what to do about M? If M is an overwhelming majority, is the law still fair and why? If there needn't be a law, don't pass one: if M = 0, that simply means that, despite the law, the statutes for fairness and safety are being ignored and do not serve the public any better than before the government presided over legal prostitution.